Punitive measures

The bio-security measures, of microscopic disinfecting and ‘washing out’ of infected premises for weeks following a cull, were described by some panel members as punitive:

You started thinking of all sorts of strange things in your mind washing out. I said prisoners wouldn"t have done it.

The distress of enforced captivity on an infected farm was compounded by the chaos:

Once they were confirmed, that was them confined to barracks for however long it took. It took them ten days to a fortnight before they even started to build his fire, then they made a mess of that, they couldn"t get it to light or to burn….Yeh, horrendous time of it.

                                                                                               (Agricultural related, interview, 2002)

In 2002, a vet reflects on the ‘science’ behind the enforced captivity, in this case for a farming household who did not trust the contiguous cull policy:

The self-imposed isolation of not sending kids to school etc is just stupid but to go against the flow is very difficult. [. . .] They were not allowed to leave the house for 3 months. They just view this as a punishment imposed because they refused to let the hefted flock be culled. (They were right not to.)

                                                                                                  (Health and veterinary ,diary,  2002)

In later diaries there is also a sense that ongoing bio-security restrictions and regulations, particularly in the livestock industries, are punitive, partly because they are unworkable and do not make sense:

Now they [DEFRA] want to minimise risk by regulating animal movements so draconianly (sic) that they are making it impossible for us trade. ‘Don’t even try to argue’ we were told, ‘it won’t change a thing’.

[ Back to Trust in Governance ]

Site Design by FractalWeb with the generous support of Cumbria County Council